Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in recent years, Democrats have made historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those dollars to good use. I think it is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle continue to attack good government programs.
Environmental justice, just to explain this, ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. It is particularly important in rural communities, like the one I represent and like the one I imagine my colleague represents. Many of these rural communities are in the very districts my colleagues across the aisle are representing.
Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning boards when siting polluting facilities.
Let me give you a list of the kinds of things we are talking about here: landfills, waste transfer stations, incinerators, garbage dumps, diesel bus and truck garages, auto body shops, smokestack industries, industrial hog and chicken processors, oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, and radioactive waste storage areas.
Because of this, these communities typically have lower property values, higher health disparities, and shorter lifespans. We are not talking about something trivial here. We are talking about serious concerns about your health, the length of your life, and what your property is worth.
Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives of people in rural and low-income communities?
I am sorry, but it is just another attempt to implement an extreme agenda to attack minority groups at all costs and to return to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and low-income communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the aisle said no one ever calls his office and talks about environmental justice. I understand. There are all kinds of words we use in Congress that people rarely talk to us about. They don't talk to us about many of the procedures that we have on the floor, all kinds of things that we do.
However, you do have people who call your office to say: Do you know what? I don't want that chemical manufacturer sited next to my house. I am worried about that hog farm that is coming down the road from me. I am worried about the garbage dump. I am worried about the health impacts that my family is experiencing because of where we live.
Maybe that didn't happen in your district. I will admit that everything doesn't happen in all of our districts, but there are certainly districts across the country where people are experiencing adverse health impacts. They are experiencing loss of property values because things have been sited in their neighborhood.
Maybe my colleague, like so many times here in Congress, just doesn't like the words. I understand. I have heard the term ``environmental justice'' so many times over the last couple of days, as if it is some kind of a discriminatory term, or as if it is some kind of term that they just can't get out of their mouth without feeling angry.
We can call it anything we want. We can call it poor siting of messy places. We can call it anything my colleagues want. To make sure that all Americans get a fair deal and that people don't have adverse health impacts, I am willing to change that, just like we can't say ``climate change'' without people getting upset.
I am happy, every time we have to discuss this, just to say ``extreme weather.'' Okay, it is extreme weather. It is too much melting. It is too much heat. Too much of things that aren't supposed to happen and going wrong--the hottest summer on record, melting of the polar ice cap, and people who live in communities like mine experiencing the greatest heat in the ocean of any oceans on Earth.
These are things that are impacting all of us. I will call it whatever my colleagues like, but we have to do something about it. We have to have equity here, and we have to make sure it is a fair deal for everybody.
I heard you didn't like the term ``tree equity.'' I get it. It is one of those things that you just think: What are we talking about now?
In fact, urban areas have changed. I am so fortunate that I live in the most forested State in the Nation. I don't know what it is like where my colleague lives. If my colleague lives on top of a hill, maybe there are some trees up there. It makes a huge difference if you are in a part of the city that has trees, if your playgrounds are paved and black and hot in the summer, or if your playgrounds have some trees and shade and some cover so kids can go out and play. We are just talking about kids being able to play on the playground and having a decent life.
When we are talking about making sure we plant trees, which often my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is a really good idea, we go ahead and believe we should plant more trees.
Let's not get caught up in the terminology. I think there is a lot we could work on together here and that we believe in together. This amendment to disregard all funding for environmental justice--tell me what you want to call it--that is just not appropriate and is not how we should be funding our environmental laws and not how we should be dealing with climate change.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, we are only 14 days away from a government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere.
The draconian cuts that are proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden and that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain.
Now we are here today to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storms, and wildfire events we are experiencing.
As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. This is a new record.
This amendment seeks to prohibit funding that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.
Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the acceleration of climate change and instead spending billions in disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, our food security, and our quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle has proposed this bill that would really slash and burn so many of the important programs that our President has implemented to tackle climate change.
Why did he have to do that?
I have been in Congress for about 15 years, and I am very fortunate to have served that amount of time. But since I came here, I have been dealing with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have denied that climate change existed, who have done everything they could to support the oil and gas industry, and who have pushed back on any kind of legislation or funding or anything we could possibly do to deal with climate change, and 15 years later we are in a very serious situation.
Now, my colleague is proud of saying that it is a simple truth. It is a simple truth this, it is a simple truth that.
Mr. Chair, let me tell you a simple truth. Our planet is warming. We had the hottest summer on record, oceans are heating. The polar ice cap is melting. We are in a very serious state, and most scientists will say that things are happening much faster than we ever anticipated. Here we are having a ridiculous debate about something that is not actually going to go anywhere and a bill that is not going to happen with a party on the other side of the aisle that wants to cut everything we have already done in the last 2 years to support funding for climate change.
This is our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Chair, you can say that we are just going to handle it in my small town and my small State. I am just going to explain to you that the planet is warming as an entire entity. Yes, we have to deal with foreign countries, but we also have to make sure that our country is on the right track, that we are investing in renewable energy, that we are not putting our heads in the sand and just ignoring what is going on out there, that all of these things are critically important. We have to stop digging in our heels on every single bill and denying that climate change is real and making all kinds of crazy arguments about well, it is India's fault or China's fault or America can't do it.
We can do all these things. We can manufacture the batteries in this country. We can manufacture the solar panels in this country. That is much of what we have done in the last bill, the infrastructure bill, the IRA, investing in our country, and investing in American manufacturing so that this can be homegrown American energy.
Every time the gentleman talks about gas prices, he refuses to acknowledge that we are trying to end our dependence on gas and oil, we are trying to make sure we are an energy-independent nation, and, yes, that takes a transition. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, we have to make those investments in the future.
I have never seen a party so unwilling to invest in our economic future and to acknowledge what is actually happening in our daily lives and in our families' daily lives.
If the gentleman really listened to his constituents or took their calls or listened to what people are saying about their worries about the future, one of their greatest worries is what are we going to do about the warming planet?
What are we going to do about the number of days when kids can't go outside and play because it is too hot?
What are we going to do about making sure we are looking at our future together?
That is not what the gentleman is doing here. He is just denying that climate change exists. He is denying that we have real work ahead of us and we ought to be doing it together.
Once again, I oppose this horrible amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, as far as I can tell, this is just another attack on environmental justice. The Council on Environmental Quality is coordinating the development of an ocean justice strategy that will propose equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and prosperity for communities that are residing near the ocean, the coast, and the Great Lakes. This amendment seeks to block that strategy.
Coastlines are home to approximately 40 percent of the United States population. Unfortunately, coastal communities do not share equitably in the benefits provided by the ocean or equitably bear the burden of the negative impacts of human activities associated with the ocean, such as climate change, coastal flooding, and other threats.
Environmental justice ensures that all Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. This amendment is just another way to attack minority groups at all costs and return the United States to a time when environmental discrimination was the norm.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, I am kind of caught in this challenge of not understanding exactly what it is that my colleagues don't like about the term ``environmental justice,'' or in this case, ``ocean justice.''
It seems like ``justice'' is a word that we are very comfortable with in a patriotic way that everyone understands. Justice is important in this country.
As a Member who represents as much coastline as anybody in here that is extremely impacted by the challenges that are going on in the ocean, such as sea level rise and extreme storms, I have to deal with these questions. I think it is totally appropriate to have a justice strategy in making sure that we have equitability in how we take care of people.
If you live in a community where it is underresourced and are impacted by these ocean storms that come at us with total surprise--for example, a winter storm or nor'easter, as we call them, or a hurricane in the southern part of the country, and there aren't resources to rebuild. Perhaps sea level rise is making it so that your community needs to be moved.
I was talking last night about the 31 Native communities in Alaska that have to be moved because of sea level rise. If you don't have a justice lens, somebody might turn around and just say: I am sorry. This community isn't valuable enough. You don't have the resources, and your people can't move their own homes. You can't deal with rebuilding the coastal protections, so the money is going somewhere else, to a wealthier community, to someplace where we think people matter more.
Those decisions are critical decisions about how we spend our Federal funds, about how we make sure the work we do is equitable. Climate change is having a huge impact on life on the ocean.
I do not want to criticize my colleague. I am sure he has put this forward in good faith, but the last I saw, Arkansas doesn't have an ocean, and my colleague is trying to make policy for those of us who represent ocean communities in the East, West, and South throughout this country, the 40 percent of the United States population that lives on the ocean. These are critical strategies for us.
We don't need to make the same mistakes that we made in the past with not having a lens of environmental justice. Why in the world would we want to turn back and have discrimination and make bad policy? Why in the world when we are facing some of the most severe crises we have ever seen? We have hurricanes that come on us with no warning, extreme storms in the winter, extreme storms at times of the year we never expected them.
I can go on for much more time than I have to talk about what just happened in my own State and the challenges people are worried about, about sea level rise, about the ocean impact of storms. This would take away the opportunity to look forward on that and make sure that our funding is equitable, that all communities are taken care of, that all parts of the country, particularly those rural areas that probably my colleague represents and I represent that are often underresourced are thought about, as well.
Again, this is a misguided amendment. People are going after a language that either they just don't want to say or somehow don't believe in or want to bring us back to a time when we had discrimination in our Federal policy and how we spent our Federal funds. It is a misguided amendment. It is a bad idea.
Mr. Chair, I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source